HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Adjustments and Appeals - 11/08/1984 APPROVED MINUTES
•
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1984 7:30 PM, ADMINISTRATION
BLDG. , ROOM 5, 8100 SCHOOL RD.
BOARD OF APPEALS MEMBERS: Chairman Ron Krueger, Richard Lynch,
Roger Sandvick, James Dickey and
Hanley Anderson
BOARD STAFF: Assistant Planner, Steve Durham and
Recording Secretary, Lynda Diede
ROLL CALL: Lynch and Sandvick were absent.
I. MINUTES
MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Dickey, to approve the Minutes of
October 11 , 1984. Motion carried unanimously.
II. VARIANCES
A. Request #84-52, submitted by Bertwood Pendleton for property located
at 15500 North Eden Drive The request is for a variance from City
• Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subd. 2, and Subd. 3, C, to permit
construction of a garage within 13' of the front property line.
Code requires a minimum of 37.8 feet as per the average set ack
of the block.
This variance request was continued from the October 11 , 1984 meeting
to allow proponent time to gather more information.
Bertwood Pendleton, 15500 North Eden Drive, reviewed the request with
the Board.
Dickey asked if there was any difference in the drawing. Pendleton
replied no. Gorco is the agent that will be doing the construction.
Krueger inquired what the average setbacks were. Durham replied 37.8'
Krueger asked what the distance from the garage would be for the
houses next door. Durham replied that for 15508 North Eden Drive,
it was a distance of 37' . It was 18' distance for 15424 North Eden
Road.
Pendleton stated that the estimate from Gorco Construction Company,
Inca was $14,500. (This included tree removal , block work and ex-
cavation. ) The bid from Du-al Construction Company was $12,000,
including the drive-way abuttment and slab.
Krueger asked what type of trees were in the yard. Pendleton replied
that they were elm and soft maple.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 2 - November 8, 1984
James E. Coplin, contractor, was concerned about the low elevation.
• Water coming down the drive may be diverted to the neighbors yard.
A retaining wall would have to be built.
Sam Larson, 15508 North Eden Drive, remarked that it was not a
problem with the neighbors. He is on the uphill side. There is
no obstruction of view from the street.
Dickey remarked that it is a 34.4% variance.
Mel Terwedo, 15424 North Eden Drive, was unable to attend the
meeting. In a letter dated November 6, 1984, he stated that he
would like the garage built as originally proposed, on the front
of the lot.
Dickey called attention to the fact that he had required two things
of Pendleton: Discussion with his neighbors and a bid for a retain-
ing wall. The neighbors were spoken to and bids were received.
Anderson remarked that the other alternative mentioned at the October
8, 1984 meeting was to make a different living area at the back of
the house. Pendleton stated that the alternative wasn't examined
because they would have had to purchase a new furnace and do extra
duct and electricity work.
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request
• #84-52, submitted by Bertwood Pendleton with the following
findings:
1 ) Neighbors have been spoken to.
2) A plan for improving the aesthetic aspect of the property
has been made.
3) This is for the health and welfare of the City of Eden
Prairie.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
B. Request #84-53, submitted by Welcome Home for property located at
7170 Bryant Lake Drive, formerl Flying Cloud Drive . The re-
quest is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .66,
Subd. 2, to permit a maximum of 18 unrelated adult residents in a
"family care home." Code permits 6 maximum.
This variance request was continued from the October 11 , 1984
meeting. A recommendation from the Human Rights and Services
Commission was not available at that time. Legal advice was
also requested from the Eden Prairie City Attorney, Roger Pauly,
(See Exhibit A. )
Barbara Lundstrom Willcox, program director/administrator of Welcome
Home, spoke to the request. This facility would be one of five lo-
cations proposed by Hennepin County for respite care services for
mentally ill individuals. Care services would not exceed 60 days.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 3 - November 8, 1984
Clients will be pre-screened by psychiatrists. The Bryant Lake
• Drive site was chosen because it poses a tranquil , peaceful , home-
like atmosphere. It is set apart from other homes in the area with
woods surrounding three sides of it. The Eden Prairie area was
chosen to address the needs of suburban people. An assessment of
each individual 's mental illness is determined. The program is
designed to help clients find answers by referring to other people
and/or helping them to develop skills. Welcome Home is staffed by
experienced professionals. The Department of Public Welfare sets
guidelines and standards for the staff.
Krueger inquired about transportation. Willcox stated that a van
will be provided for immediate transportation needs. Shuttle ser-
vice to certain areas such as Southdale will be provided where
public transportation can be obtained.
Dickey pointed out that what we are talking about is a single
dwelling to allow 6 people or 18 people in the home. It usually
calls for one family in a single family dwelling. All other
aesthetic values have nothing to do with this Board.
Willcox stated that the home had been used as a multiple family
dwelling prior to the ordinance .in 1969. Krueger remarked that
there are dwellings in Eden Prairie that have been made that way.
No permission or rezoning was obtained.
Roger Pauly, City attorney, commented that Jean Johnson, zoning
• Administrator, and Steve Durham, assistant planner, inspected the
building. Durham stated that it initially was the City's opinion
that through word of mouth and letters submitted, that the structure
possibly had 2 units. There was no legal documentation. Upon
examining the structure, it was concluded that it is a single
family structure. There were no physical barriers indicating
different units. There is one sewer hook-up, one water hook-up,
one electric meter, and one gas meter. There are three kitchens
in the home. No building permit was ever taken out through the
City, so the City had no knowledge that there were two units in
the facility. It was originally constructed as a single family
home in a rural zoned district.
Susan Lentz, attorney with the Mental Health and Welfare and Legal
Aid Society of Minneapolis, was present. She spoke on behalf of
the Mental Health Association of Minnesota and the Mental. Health
Association of Hennepin County to express support for the concept
of Welcome Home in Eden Prairie. Lentz passed around a letter
written by George Carr, executive director of the Mental Health
Association of Minnesota. (See Exhibit B.) Carr expressed his
support for the concept of the facility in Eden Prairie. Lentz
pointed out that a facility for a mentally ill individual is lic-
ensed by the State Department of Human Services. It is the role
of the State Department of Human Services and various health
authorities to insure that the program is adequate in funds.
• Hennepin County has already decided,,to grant a contract to Welcome
Home. In his letter, Carr pointed out that absence of sidewalks
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 4 - November 8, 1984
and the presence of the creek are not critical to mentally ill
• . people. Also, numerous studies have shown that there is no de-
crease in property values when a facility is located in a neigh-
borhood. Copies of these studies are available.
Dickey noted that the concerns being discussed are not germane to
the request. The discussion is regarding a single family dwelling
and the number of people in it. Lenz remarked that they were there
to see if a variance can appropriately be granted. Lenz believed
that it could.
Jack Strothman, attorney for Welcome Home, stated that the issue
must be decided with the City Attorney if it is a multi-family or
a single family unit. The facts that the City has must be weighed
by the City Attorney.
Pauly stated that we should not get into the merits of the facility.
The concern of the Board is the use of the particular property, the
increase of the number of persons and the type of use that would be
contemplated, if granted.
Strothman stated that the issue still remains if it is defined as a
single family dwelling.
Pauly responded that the property is zoned rural . Permitted uses
in a rural zoning include a single family detached dwelling and
accessory structure without platting,on parcels of five or more
acres, but less than ten acres , as of July 6, 1982. This property
existed as less than one acre as of July 6, 1982. The report of
inspection indicates that there doesn't appear to be any division
of apartments or separation of living units in this facility. There
are several bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, and 3 kitchens, all intermingled,
with no separate entrances. There is one water service, one sewer
and electric service. In a rural zone there is a permitted use of
single family detached dwellings. A single family dwelling is
defined as a building designed for or occupied exclusively by one
family. A family is defined as not more than 5 persons living
together. The group home part of the Code, says that it is 6
living together and maintaining a common household. This facility
appears not to be designed for multiple family. At this point,
the record indicates that it is a single family unit. The burden
of proof is upon the proponent to show that there is some non-con-
forming use that is presently being made of the property which began
prior to October 1969, when the restriction on the use of the rural
property was first adopted.
Apparently, the only proof that the City has of a pre-existing
multiple use is a letter written October 25, 1984, by Illah M.
Sutton. (See Exhibit C. ) The fact remains however, that it is
not designed in the sense that it has more than one living unit
in it. It would still require the determination on the part of
the Board-, that the variance either from 6, or if it is duplex,
. 12 people, would have to be granted to permit the occupancy by 18.
The Board of Appeals is authorized to hear requests for variances
from the literal provisions of the ordinance where a strict
i I
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 5 - November 8, 1984
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
• unique to the individual property. A variance may be granted
when it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship means that
the property can not be put to a reasonable use if used under con-
ditions allowed by the zoning provisions of the Code, and the plight
of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property,
not created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, will not
alter the essential character of the locality.
Dickey showed concern with the Board of Appeals ' power to grant
variances. We are looking at the number of people and whether
it is a single home or a multiple dwelling.
Pauly commented that under the ordinance, there is a multiple
situation permitted. Two family units can have 6 persons. Under
the group home ordinance, it permits it permits 12 adults. Under a
state statute it says that a multiple residential facility can
accommodate from 7-16 persons. Under the state statute, that type
of use is permitted in a multiple residential type of use.
Strothman inquired if there was a written report of the inspection.
Durham replied no, not at this time. Strothman asked who did the
inspection. Durham said that the inspection was done by himself
and Jean Johnson, zoning administrator. Pauly stated that he had
received a memorandum from Durham dated November 5, 1984, regarding
• the inspection of the dwelling at 7170 Bryant Lake Drive. Pauly
remarked that a copy of the inspection could be forwarded to Strothman.
Strothman stated that he would like a copy of the inspection report.
Strothman stated that if they have a multiple family use here we
have a guideline that may approach to 16. They still are requesting
a variance to 18. The question is the extent of the variance re-
quested. Strothman believed it to be a multiple family dwelling.
Strothman added his clients have stated that there are separate
entrances and there are doors between, that do contain locks.
Strothman felt that what we have by the affidavit, and the continued
use thereafter, is a multiple family dwelling. The City, along with
its inspector and attorney, will have to address that decision.
Pauly, stated that it is incumbent upon the proponent to prove that
it was a prior non-conforming use. It is not incumbent upon the
City to supply that information. Strothman remarked that they are
prepared to do that. The present owner can be brought in.
Paulylasked Strothman if they had an affidavit. Strothman said
that ,they would provide an affidavit and get sworn testimony.
Pauly', noted that the proponent was advised to get evidence proving
what the non-conforming use was. Strothman said that he didn't
realize that the statement of the former owner had to be taken
underioath. Strothman said that they are prepared to provide that
evidence. They believe that the facts presented, as told by the
client, are accurate. Strothman encouraged the City to re-
inspect if they felt something was missed.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 6 - November 8, 1984
Nelma Mavison, 6613 Canterbury Lane, is with the Association
for Retarded Citizens. Her main reason for coming is to make
people aware that this can happen to anyone. We should welcome
an opportunity to reach out and help these people that need
respite care.
Jan Check, 6880 Sugar Hill Circle, psychiatric social worker at
West ''Hennepin Community Mental Health Center, endorsed the concept
of Welcome Home. Check co-ordinates the after-care program for
people who do have recurring psychiatric illness. Currently,
there are 8 clients using their services who live in Eden Prairie.
The only residential program located in the suburbs is in Bloom-
ington. Each community should have its own mental health program.
If a 'client must go to another area of town for respite care, there
could be a change in culture.
Tom Esser, director of South Hennepin Human Services Council ,
explained his reason for attending the meeting. The citizens
of the South Hennepin area should have the right to receive
services close to their homes. In regard to a letter written
by Wilkie to the Human Rights and Services Commission, it was
indicated that the South Hennepin Human Services Council did
not approve this project. (See Exhibit D. ) The Council does
not jet into approving or disapproving sites or programs. However,
the Council is supportive of the concept of the location of pro-
grams of this type.
• Krueger wondered why the Human Rights and !Services Commission
denied this request. Willcox responded that they did not want
to take a stand because they did not have enough information on
the site. Also, they were concerned about the issues of facilities
for access of handicapped people in the building.
Willcox remarked that they have made application to the Department
of Public Welfare, Department of Health and the Fire Marshal .
Debbie O'Gara, 7024 Springhill Circle, is business manager of Vail
Place. She stated her support for the mental health services
offered by Welcome Home.
Marge Wherley, co-ordinator for development of residential mental
health programs in Hennepin County stated her concerns. This pro-
gram is most designed to serve suburban clients. A survey was
made of 87 facilities and 62% of the facilities are operating in
single family and duplex type buildings; 20% are located in huge
dorms or hotels. Only 15-18% are used in apartment buildings.
Single family residences and duplexes are ideally suited for this
type of client.
Dickey asked how Eden Prairie became the choice of the site.
Willcox replied that the location met what was wanted in a setting:
tranquility and peacefulness. An advantage was the Vo-Tech School
• nearby.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 7 - November 8, 1984
Kent Molde, 7040 Willow Creek Road, president of Willow Creek
• Association, urged denial of the variance request. He represent-
ed the neighbors immediately abutting the proposed .project. (See
Exhibit E. ) Molde is a physician and is not personally against
the concept. If it were a 6 person level of operation he would
not have reservations against it, although some of his neighbors
might. It is not a transitional neighborhood. Concern was also
raised regarding handicapped provisions. The home is of a victor-
ian type, with multiple floors, and probably narrow stairways.
Don Johnson, 7261 Willow Creek Road, stated that his main concern
was the distinction between a duplex and a renter. Johnson lived
adjacent to 7170 Bryant Lake Drive for 12 years when the Suttons
resided in the house in question. Don Hanson, the present owner,
was a renter at that time. The property is less than one acre.
Of that portion of the property about 1/3 of that is across the
creek. Johnson's property abutts the property by 100' . The west
side of his property is 10' from the proposed facility.
Don Sorensen, 7121 Willow Creek Road, pointed out that the statutes
and local ordinances are definitely stating the basis upon which
the ordinances can be granted. They are of a restrictive basis.
Sorensen had not heard anything which would justify giving any of
the above criteria any action of approval . In a situation of this
nature, it is incumbent upon the people who are asking for the
variance, that they must provide a burden of proof, to convince
• you that the situation in regard to the variance is correct.
There is an admission that there will be structural modification.
The proposal shows that there is a 2 or 3 year lease. If the
lease is not renewed, you can have a structure which has been
redesigned with finances to push the use up. The Guide Plan
provides for a single family area. The fact that it was used as
a renter at one time without City approval , without structural
modification at that time to change the actual structure, does
not permit the interest that the property was a duplex. Sorensen
noted that: 1 ) The burden of proof has not been met. 2) The
criteria upon which you can legally grant a variance has not even
approached being met by this situation. 3) Given the laws which
are there, there is no basis to grant a variance. 4) It is not
a change in numbers ; it is a change in use which is not authorized.
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to deny Variance Request'
#84-53, submitted by Welcome Home, with the following
findings :
1 ) There is no basis for multiple dwellings here to be
improved.
2) There is no burden of proof that has been shown.
Discussion: Pauly commented that in our decision we would
have to separate out the evidence relating to the method of
• operation of the facility.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 8 - November 8, 1984
The Human Rights and Services Commission noted that the
• facility is pecularily within the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Public Welfare. It is not within the City's
jurisdiction or responsibility. Decisions should be made on
the basis of the expansion of the numbers and any physical
changes that have been shown with regard to changes.
Anderson seconded the motion, adding that the hardship of
not being able to have 6 adults has not been demonstrated.
Motion carried unanimously.
Pauly inquired if Krueger wished to refer this matter to the
Staff for preparation of more detailed findings. Krueger
responded yes. Strothman asked if the information would be
prepared in advance so that they would have an opportunity
to review it. Pauly replied yes.
Pauly stated that should an appeal be filed, the City Council
would set a date for a hearing.
C. Request #84-56, submitted by Gary Hallen for property located at
19115 Pheasant Circle The request is for a variance from Clty
Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to ptrmit an
accessorX structure 8 feet from the property line. Code requires
10 feet.
Karen Hallen representing Gary Hallen, reviewed the request with
• the Board. Neighbors were in support of the existing structure.
Dickey inquired if the structure were completed. Hallen replied
that some painting remained to be done.
Durham stated that the Building Department suggested that a one
hour fire wall be installed because of the proximity of the
structure to the house.
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-56, submitted by Gary Hallen with the following findings:
1 ) The percentage of the variance is low.
2) There is verification that the neighbors approve the
variance.
3) The structure is going to be painted the same .as the .house.
4) A one hour fire wall shall be constructed on the wall
opposite the door and adjacent to the housing unit.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Request #84 57, submitted by Jack L. Hulbert for property located_
• at 6843 Washington Avenue South The request is for a variance
from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 9 - November 8, 1984
permit construction of a building addition 12 feet from the rear
• property line. Code requires 25 feet.
Lee Johnson, representing Jack L. Hulbert, presented the proposal
to the Board. He explained that alternatives were looked at.
Drawings were displayed.
Krueger inquired if it were to be a permanent structure. Johnson
replied yes, and it would be constructed of the same material as
the present building. Johnson added that the addition is necessary
to shelter the trucks during winter months. Outside, overnight
parking is not allowed by the City ordinances.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-57, submitted by Jack L. Hulbert with the following
findings:
1 ) It is necessary to get the trucks off the street.
2) The variance is small .
3) Screening of loading facilities from Washington Avenue.
4) The new addition be constructed out of the block utilized
on the existing building.
Dickey seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
E. Request #84-58, submitted by Walter D. & Joan E. Griepentrog for
• property located at 17401 Flying Cloud Drive. The request is for
a variance from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision
2 B, to permit platting of a 4.3 acre parcel zoned rural . - -(City
Code requires 10 acres.
Walter D. & Joan E. Griepentrog, 17401 Flying Cloud Drive, reviewed
their proposal with the Board. A letter was received ,.by the pro-
ponent, September 28, 1984, from the United States Department of
the Interior. It stated that an agreement was executed providing
for the sale of 96.45 acres , more or less, of land in Hennepin
County to be included as part of the Minnesota Valley National
Wildlife Refuge. The Griepentrogs wish to retain approximately
4.3± acres where the existing homestead is . This is the only
possible building site on the 100 acre farm site. No other de-
velopment will occur on the wildlife refuge. They do not need
the 10 acres of land; six of which would be swamp. Griepentrog
added that they plan to remodel the house and rebuild a garage
and a workshop.
Durham noted that any additional outbuildings constructed would
be in compliance with rural zoning setbacks.
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-58, submitted by Walter D. & Joan E. Griepentrog Vith
the following findings:
•
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 10 - November 8, 1984
1 ) The United Stated Department of Interior, Fish & Wildlife
• Service, is purchasing a great deal of property; this is
a hardship.
2) This is the only possible building site on the 100 acre
farm .site. No other development will occur on the wild-
life refuge.
3) The proponents do not want or need 10 acres of land, six
of which would be swamp.
4) The United States Department of the Interior desires to
purchase as much land as possible to be included as part
of the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
5) If the variance is not granted, the sales agreement with
the U. S. Department of the Interior, entered in on Sept-
ember 27, 1984, will be null and void making it necessary
for a new agreement and survey to be executed.
6) The 96.45 acres will become part of the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge and be subject to such rules and
regulations as may be prescribed by the U. S. Department
of the Interior.
7) There is no problem to the City of Eden Prairie.
• Krueger seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
F. Request #84-59, submitted by T. Michael Carmody for property
located at 14258 Tower Lane. The request is for a variance
from City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B,
to permit construction of a deck 22 feet from the front and
property line. Code requires 30 feet. )_
T. Michael Carmody, agent for Argus Development, Inc. presented
the proposal to the Board. Photos were displayed. The unit is
at the maximum setback of 30' for both front yards.
Krueger inquired if this was the only unit that needed a varianoe
for a deck. Carmody replied yes.
Dickey asked if Carmody knew before the unit was built that it
would need a variance for a deck. Carmody replied yes. On the
certificate of survey it was indicated no deck would be permitted
in the front yard however, the proponent indicated the contractors
were unaware of this violation. They constructed the unit in
question with the intent of a deck on either the front or side
of the unit.
Dan and Kelly Stoks plan on purchasing the home. They are pres-
sured for time as far as financing. Should the variance be denied,
Mthey would not want to go ahead with the purchase.
Charlotte Shelstad, Coldwell Banker, stated that the unit was sold,
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 11 - November 8, 1984
contingent upon the variance request.
• Dan Stoks remarked that this is the only unit that would not have
a deck. The value of the unit would decrease. It would interrupt
the uniformity in the area. It would be a hardship as it would be
hard to sell the unit without a deck.
Dickey inquired what the deck would be constructed of, if approved.
Stoks replied, cedar top with cedar rail . The wood would be
treated, sitting on poles 8' out and 10' across.
Dickey stated that the problem that the City has is with aesthetics.
Anderson asked where the other decks were located. Stoks said that
they were off to the side.
Carmody stated that if there is a visual concern, plant material
can be put in to screen.
MOTION: Anderson made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-59, submitted by T. Michael Carmody, with the following
findings:
1 ) That plant material be used for screening.
2) This will be the only unit requiring a variance for a
deck.
• 3) It is a hardship.
Dickey seconded the motion, adding that the screening material
be year round such as spruce or pine. Motion carried unanimously.
G. Request #84-60, submitted by Thomas & Grace Carmody for property
located at 8595 Mitchell Road The request is for a variance from
City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to permit
construction of an unattached accessory garage 5 feet from a side
lot line. Code re uires 30 feet.
Grace Carmody and T. Michael Carmody, reviewed the proposal to the
Board.
Krueger inquired as to the reason for building the garage 5' from
the line. Grace Carmody said that was where they wanted to build
the garage and all of the other houses were built that way. They
were told by the City that they were still rural .
Durham stated that the property to the north is zoned R1-13.5. The
property to the south is zoned rural .
Dickey inquired who would do the construction. Grace Carmody
replied that they would, with the help of children and carpenters.
• Dickey asked what the siding would consist of. T. Michael Carmody
said that the siding would be the same as the house, redwood.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 12 - November 8, 1984
MOTION: Krueger made a motion to approve Variance Request
• #84-60, submitted by Thomas & Grace Carmody with the follow-
ing findings:
1 ) The surrounding areas are zoned such that the garages on
all the surrounding lots are to be 5' from the line.
2) This property will be subdivided and rezoned.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
H. Request #84-61 , submitted by Crown Auto, Inc./R.E. Mjol,sness for
property located at 7550 Corporate Way. The request is for a
variance from City Code, Chapter ll , Section 11 .03, Subdivision
2 B, and Section 11 .03, Subdivision 3, H. 5, d, to permit parking
T4_T from the front property line. Code requires 50' .
Robert E. Mjolsness , representing Crown Auto, Inc. presented the
proposal to the Board. Drawings were displayed. There has been
an increase in the size of semi tractors-trailors. Presently
there is a 29' clearance to the front of the trucks. This does
not allow clearance for a second or third truck and trailer unit
to approach the dock area. They propose to put in 62' high tie
walls , 15' back into the berm.
Dickey inquired as to the construction of the material .
• Mjolsness replied, cedar ties. Minnesota Tree has bid on $7,000
worth of tie wall .
Dickey asked what the City would suggest for landscaping aesthetics.
Durham replied that the tie wall is sufficient.
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-61 , submitted by Crown Auto, Inc. with the following
findings:
1 ) This is for truck maneuverability.
2) There is no change in aesthetics.
3) The existing berm be maintained.
4) A new tie wall constructed.
5) Existing landscape be retained.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
I. Request #84-62, submitted by Richard Miller Homes, Inc. for property
located at 7970, 7972, 7974, 7976, 7990, 7992, 7994, 7996, 8000, 8002
8004, 8006 Timber Lake Drive The request is fora variance from
• City Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, for minimum lot size, minimum
lot width and depth, and front, side, and rear yard setbac s for the con-
struction of multiple family units.
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 13 - November 8, 1984
Terry Lamb, representing Richard Miller Homes, Inc. spoke to the
• request.
This variance request will be continued until the December 13, 1984
meeting to allow the Planning Commission time to review the proposed
plans.
MOTION: Krueger made a motion to continue Variance Request
#84-62 until the December 13, 1984 meeting. Dickey seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
J. Request #84-63, submitted by Richard Condon for property located at
10561 E. Riverview Drive The request is for a variance from City
Code, Chapter 11 , Section 11 .03, Subdivision 2 B, to construct an
attached garage 10 feet from the property line, Code re wires 15
feet.
Frank Cardarelle, representing Richard Condon,presented the request
to the Board.
Dickey stated that he had personally seen the area for the proposed
addition. He can see no reason for concern.
MOTION: Dickey made a motion to approve Variance Request
#84-63, submitted by Richard Condon with the following
findings:
• 1 ) According to the City's Assessing Department, the home
is being assessed as a single family dwelling. There
was no indication of a resident caretaker apartment
when the property was assessed in 1982.
2) Internal access to the existing house from the resident
caretaker apartment be maintained.
3) The residential caretaker apartment be on all the same
utility systems. This includes heating system, water
system, septic system and electric meters.
4) The proposed apartment unit be utilized as a caretaker
apartment exclusively.
5) The request is for the betterment of Eden Prairie.
Anderson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
III. OLD BUSINESS
Dickey commended Assistant Planner, Steve Durham, on the fine job he is
doing for the Board of Appeals.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
None
Board of Appeals and Adjustments - 14 - November 8, 1984
V. ADJOURNMENT
• MOTION: Anderson moved, seconded by Krueger, to adjourn the meeting
at 9:45 PM. Motion carried unanimously.
•
EXHIBIT A
15 -
L A W O r r 1 C [6
LANG . PAULY & GREGERSON , LTD.
4108 IDS CENTER
• MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
(tOOCRT 1. LAND
RDDCR A• PAU1.T October 2.5, 1984
OAVID H. ORCGCR60N
RICHARD r. R090W
MARK J. JOHNSON
JOBCPH A. HILAN
JOHN W. LAP40
Mr. Steve Durham
Assistant Planner
City of Eden Prairie
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
RE: Welcome Home Variance Request Number 84-53
Dear Mr. Durham:
This is in response to the request by the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, transmitted to me by your recent letter, for
authority of the Board to grant the sub-
my opinion as to the
ject variance .
•
Under rlinnesota Statutes Section 462 . 357 , Subd. 6 (2) , the
Board is authorized ton hear
ordinancetwhe�e itslstrictfenforce-
rom the
literal provisions of a
ment would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property and to grant
when it is demonstrated that
ofsthe ordinance. "Undueh action will be in hardship"
with the spirit and intent put to a reasonable
means the property in question can not be p zoning provisions
use if used under conditions allowed by
of the Code, the plight of the landowner is due
t17tolcircum-
stances unique to his property not created by
and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality. That subdivision further provides
that the Board may not permit, as a variance , any use that is
not permitted under the Code for property in the zone where
the affected person' s land is located .
It is my understanding
that the property in question is
located in the Rural district. Permitted uses
ofland in ng
the Rural district include a single-family (in
without platting on parcels of not less than ten acres ,
as
to parcels existing as of July 6 , 1982. _
acres) . A family is defined in the Code as one or
more foster
sons related by bloo per
d, marriage , or adoption,
• children, or a group of not more than five persons, some or
16
I
• Mr. Steve Durham
Page Two
October 25, 1984
all of whom are not related by blood, marriage, or adoption,
living together and maintaining a common household.
Apparently, the question raised by the opponent to the
request, in his assertion that the Board does not have the
power to grant a variance in this instance, is based upon the
assumption that the use of the premises for a so-called group
home facility is a use not permitted in the Rural district.
In my opinion, the use of premises which may properly
be used for family occupancy in a particular district may
also be used for a group home. This is specifically contem-
plated in subdivisions 7 and 8 of Minnesota Statute Section
462. 357, which state that a state licensed group home or
foster home serving six or fewer mentally retarded or physi-
cally handicapped persons shall be considered a single-family
residential use of the property for purposes of zoning and
such a facility serving from seven to sixteen such persons
shall be considered a permitted multi-family residential use
of property for purposes of zoning. Furthermore, the recent
• case of Northwestern Residents , Inc. , and Rita Smith vs . the
City of Brooklyn Center, decided by the Minnesota Court o
Appeals supports my conclusion. In that case, the owners of
a four-plex sought to gain City approval to use the four-plex
as a group home. One of the issues raised was whether the
contemplated use would be an expansion of a non-conforming
use inasmuch as the four-plex did not meet certain current
zoning standards. The Court of Appeals found that the fact
the facility would house more people than presently living
in the structure does not support a conclusion that the home
would be an expansion of a non-conforming use. That case
involved certain factors which may distinguish it from the
situation presented here in that Brooklyn Center permitted
boarding homes as special uses and apparently allowed at
least eighteen people to live in the four-plex. These facts
apparently led the trial court to conclude that it was not
demonstrated that the effect of the proposed home would be
greater than if the units-were occupied by the typical four
families instead of mentally ill persons . That may not be 4
true in the instant case. It is significant that while a
number of issues were raised by the City in denying the
request for a special use permit, no assertion was made that
the use of the property for a group home was a use different
from that of a residential multi-family facility.
•
17 -
• Mr. Steve Durham
Page Three
October 25, 1984 '
1
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the Board has the
authority to consider the request for variance and to grant
the same if it meets the standards and criteria of the State ;
statute and the City Code. This opinion does not, however,
extend to the merits of whether the variance should or should
not be granted, and I do not express any opinion thereon.
Sincerely,
j�
oger A. Pauly
RAP:cw
•
i
EXHIBIT B
18 _ } 1Cl ' �1hit tl it 4y
612%835.9046
5501 Green Valley Drive
Suite 103
Bloomington,Minnesota 55437 November 7, 1984
Ron Krueger, Chairman
Board of Appeals and Adjustments
City of Eden Prairie
President 8950 Eden Prairie Rd.
DAVE KROGSENG Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2499
Vice-President
Administration Dear Mr. Krueger and Board Members:
MILTON BIX
Vice-President The controversy surrounding .the current attempt to provide a
Chapter
EKLI GLE residential facility to serve mentally ill individuals in .
JANE KLINGLE Y y
community has undoubtedly raised serious concerns and fears.
- Vice-President
Communications
GENE BRATSCH Such concerns and fears are understandable. The citizens of
Vice-President Eden Prairie are, after all, interested in preserving the
Development wholesome environment of the area and the value of a lifetime
ROBERT MEAD
investment in home and property.
Vice-President
Public Affairs
THOMASOISON I agree that the concerns are legitimate--and rightfully• ex-
pressed--and I respectfully request the opportunity to address
Secretary
PATRICIA KEITH some of those concerns. In doing so I refer to a •letter dated
October 15, 1984, and sent to the Eden Prairie Human Rights
Treasurer
CRAIG wRUCK and Services Commission, Outlining nineteen concerns of local
National Delegate neighbors and citizens (attached) .
A.LOUIS CHAMPLIN
Executive Director Several concerns address programatic issues that are covered
GEORGE DAVID CARR by state licenses required for the program. Facilities for
mentally ill individuals are licensed by the state Department
of Human Services under Rule 36, which sets specific standards
for programming, staffing, community liaisons, and liaison
medical and psychiatric services. In addition, the Commissioner
of Public Health has exclusive authority to set licensing stan-
dards for the operation of residential facilities. Finally,
contracts for residential program•§ go through an extensive re-
view process by Hennepin County. Welcome Home was chosen as
the best prospect from six or seven applicants for the contract.
Other concerns address the quality of the site chosen. In
these cases it has long been our organization's position that
mentally ill individuals are to be treated with equal respect,
and given equal civil rights, as so-called "normal" person.4': -
Why are sidewalks needed for mentally ill individuals when they
are not for the neighborhood's current residents? Is the pre-
sence of a creek or auto junkyard more detrimental to them than
td current residents? Why are mentally ill individuals less
able to take the bus, or otherwise provide for their own trans-
- 19 -
Mr. Krueger, Board of Appeals and Adjustments
November 7, 1984
page two
portation?
Finally, there has been some discussion of the South Hennepin Human ,
Services Planning Board's role in advocating for the establishment
of Welcome Home's program. In fact, neither SHHSPB nor our organ-
ization actually "approves" a program; we never have done so. Our
respective roles involve advocating for services in general, and not
for specific programs.
We recognize the concerns of Eden Prairie residents as legitimate,
and will do our best to address them as the process for issuing a
permit to Welcome Home continues. Susan Lentz will be attending
Thursday evening's meeting of the Appeals Board as a representative
of our organization, and will be available for questions at that
time.
In addition, please feel free to contact me or any-other repres-
entative of the Mental Health Association if you have any questions
or comments. We welcome your participation.
Thank you,
• George . Carr
Executive Director
GDC:pja
i
From the ch Gf. EXHIBIT C ---
� 1l
IIL Zo SUTTON /
-7 1 7�
IL
L/l
�C
/ f
l
V
W
i
,,- `
i,�
EXHIBIT D
s� - 21 -
7221 Willow Creek Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
October 15, 1984
Human Rights & Service Commission
City Ball
8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Attention: Ms. Jeanette Mika, Chairperson
Dear Commission Members :
The neighbors of Willow Creek Road have met with Barbara Willcox,
representative for Welcome Home, and Donald Hanson , owner of the
proposed site for a halfway house for the mentally ill . We are
deeply concerned about both the legal and human aspects of this
proposal.
. It is our understanding that your commission is concerned only
with the human aspects of this proposal, so only our concerns in
this area are listed below for your review:
1) The need for a facility of this type and size in Eden
Prairie has not been established. Welcome Home has no
study to document this requirement.
2) Only one comparable institution exists in the metropolitan
area (located downtown) : Since Welcome Home ' s funding is
from Hennepin County, there must be a more centralized and
less remote location for a second facility, if such need
exists .
3 ) The .current Eden Prairie city code only allows for a maximum
of C patients in a single family residence . Welcome Home
is requesting to permit a ma).imum of 18 patient/residents .
This is a dramatic departure from the current city code.
4 ) The Hanson property is . 9 acres, not 1-1/3 acres as stated
in the prop sal . Of. the . 9 acres, . 25 acres is marsh and
creek bottom, rendering it useless to the Welcome Home
proposal . We question if space is adequate for such a large
number of patients .
` - 22 -
• Human Rights & Service Commission
Page - 2
October 15, 1984
5 ) The property lacks direct access to public transportation.
6) Several safety hazards exist at the site including the creek,
Bryant Lake, Countryside Auto Parks junkyard, and no sidewalks
in the neighborhood.
7 ) The building modifications required at this site to house
18 patient/residents and staff cannot possibly be in -keeping
with the character 'of the neighborhood.
8) Welcome Home will operate as a "lease tenant" and not as an
owner/operator. We question what capital commitments should
be required by this proposal and whether this organization
has the internal funding.
9) Welcome Home has planned one van to shuttle patients which
requires one staff memeber and is inadequate to handle the
transportation needs of 18 patient/residents .
10) The Hanson property does not allow adequate parking provisions
for staff members, van, visitors, and service vehicles. Welcome
Home also proposes to convert the garage to meeting space.
11 ) Welcome Home has no requirements for on site or liaison medical
or psychiatric supervision or follow-up of patients .
12) Welcome Home has no previous experience in caring for mentally
ill adults . They lack experience in skilled nursing care,
hospital care , and crisis services related to the care of
adult mental patients.
13) Welcome Home has not provided a staff profile outlining experi-
ence or education of either supervisory or operating personnel .
14) Welcome Home has not established any community liaisons neces-
sary to insure total support of the program' s services.
15) Welcome Home has no program plan for providing full-time acti-
vities to occupy patients, nor program to measure their
progress . There are no outside activities available in the
proposed area.
16 ) The remote location of the proposed site contradicts Welcome
• Home ' s basic philosophy of getting patients- back into the
mainstream of life.
I
- 23
"' • Human Rights & Service Commission
Page - 3
October 15, 1984
17) With a maximum individual stay of 60 days, there would be
a transient patient group in constant flux. This would be
difficuilt for both staff and neighbors to deal with.
18) The proposal lacks approval of South Hennepin Human Services
Council .
19) The property lacks appropriate zoning which would allow this
proposal to occupy the site.
The neighbors feel that these are valid concerns which need to be
considered in your evaluation of the Welcome Home proposal. We hope
that you concur that an alternate location is in the best interests
of the proposal, assuming a valid purpose and program plan exists .
Thank you for your consideration of these matters .
i ' e y,
J nat - n i e
J W:plg
CC . Jan Flynn - South Hennepin Human Services Council Representative
Tom Esser - Executive Director
South Hennepin Human Services
9801 Penn Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420
(Mr. Tom Esser, please submit a copy for the Mental Health
Advisory Council Commission, which I have enclosed. )
Kent Mol.de
Don Sorenson '
Willow Creek Homeowners